It's anti-illegal-immigrant. There's a difference.
Except that we've made the legal process nearly impossible for most. Fees that are out of the reach of many immigrants, takes an excessively long time, is not a 100% acceptance rate, and the explicit goal is to limit the number of immigrants. If you prefer, we could use the term "anti-poor-immigrant" or "virtually-anti-immigrant" but I call BS on saying we're merely "anti-illegal-immigrant."
Those all appear to be referring to genetically modified soybeans.
European Patent No. 301,749, granted in March 1994, is an exceptionally broad “species patent” which grants gene giant Monsanto exclusive monopoly over all forms of genetically engineered soybean varieties and seeds - irrespective of the genes used or the transformation technique employed
Virtual monopolies over GMOs are an idiotic, and natural marijuana strains may not be able to compete in the long term with genetically engineered strains, but marijuana strains which are currently in use are presumably not patented, nor are they genetically engineered, and thus no one will be able to assert control over them. The fears of legalization allowing Monsanto to come in and steal rights to your pot is paranoia.
Monsanto can and does. Sure, they patent their own strains, but they also go and buy strains from 'small potatoes' and then invoke strict policies on usage. Check out Food, Inc.
Citation needed (like the quote from the movie you're thinking of). From this article it seems that it's only affecting patented strains of corn. No hint that monsanto is stealing strains others cultivated, nothing to suggest that a company could claim pot strains that they didn't develop.
Yes, you certainly can buy artisan bread at the store, but tell me something - have you ever had a "real" loaf of bread? I'm not talking about something that your local mega-supermarket's bakery slapped an "artisan" label on. Hell, how about even baking your own bread? There's a huge difference.
No, but that's beside the point (and I'm going to direct you to a relevant XKCD strip.) You can buy it still, you'll still be able to buy fine, high priced pot too.
The reason that Obama reneged on his promises w/r/t the drug war, is that the drug war is an enormous pork-barrel scheme.
Or that there is no real political will to legalize it, and substantial opposition to it. Passing healthcare reform may end up costing him the election, it seems to have cost the house. I would have been annoyed at Obama for wasting political capitol on it. If marijuana users want it to be legal, they need to fight for it, pester their law makers. Expecting someone else to do it for them, or just waiting until absolutely no one who votes is actually opposed to marijuana is going to take an extremely long time, and is just plain lazy.
Besides that, the drug war amounts to universal criminalization: cops can get away with breaking into anyone's home and killing them if they pretend to have done so on the basis of an anonymous tip that there were drugs in the house in question.
They don't want corporations coming, getting access to all of the strains, patenting them (a la Monsanto), forcing out everyone from using seeds without paying royalties, and then ultimately turning the wonderful loaf of artisan bread that you got at the local bakery into a package of Wonder-crap.
Exactly like I said: they don't want to have to compete. You can still buy artisan bread at the store, that should have been a clue. They would still be able to sell their wares exactly as before.
The monsanto comparison is complete and utter crap. Monsanto patented strains of corn they made themselves, at considerable cost, I might add. Though they have some powerful lobbyists, they could -not- just come along and steal the strains of marijuana out there. The growers would still be able to sell their strains, just as you can still grow corn not owned by Monsanto. The reason few farmers do is because roundup-ready corn requires far less pesticides, lowering the cost of production. As the consumer, you get cheaper bread.
The fact that marijuana is 100% safe isn't enough to sway the screaming, mindless Christians
Oh, yeah, I forgot: Christian-Bashing is the last acceptable and politically-correct form of prejudice and ignorant hatred.
I don't think GP was bashing Christians. He was bashing the mindless, screaming ones opposed to marijuana. Which, by definition, are mindless. The Christians that are not mindless, are not screaming, and are not opposed to marijuana, he's not bashing them.
Surely you don't deny the existence of very stupid Christians. I've met some. I'm of the opinion that they're entitled to vote, believe whatever they want, including religion. They can even believe prohibition works when clearly it doesn't. That's fine. They, however, do not have the right to do so without being judged as mindless.
Here in California, we just voted on a referendum to legalize pot.
It failed. I didn't bother to look at the breakdown of the votes, but I do know that some in the stoner community were dead set against it. Why? Because laws against pot weren't enforced where they were, so they weren't seeing any direct benefit, while legalizing it would make it taxable and open up competition. Nevermind that people elsewhere in the state were being arrested for it, nevermind that kids were losing their ability to get financial aid, nevermind that they have a responsibility to pay taxes. Those dumb fucks voted against it.
I can only conclude that pot smokers are too dumb to get pot legalized. Meanwhile, the voters were too stupid to realize that California's biggest crop being taxed AND law enforcement not having to regulate a victimless crime could probably go a decent way toward sorting out the budget woes. Several law enforcement groups came out in favor of it for logical reasons. But the voters just said no.
Considering that approximately 66% of electricity in the US is generated by fossil fuels, electric cars are not really much of an alternative. Just because you don't burn fossil fuels directly in the car doesn't mean they are not dependent on fossil fuels.
Except it -can- be run on renewables. You could install a solar panel on your garage to charge it up in theory. If your local power plant is renewable, your car can run on non-fossil fuel energy.
A gasoline engine, on the other hand, absolutely cannot.
Also, not all fossil fuels are created equal. I vaguely remember hearing that natural gas is cleaner than gasoline, though I could be mistaken. At the very least, it reduces demand on foreign oil. We have coal and natural gas. Save Canadian and Mexican oil for things that must be run on oil, and stop importing from Saudi Arabia, that would be a good thing.
And with their pre-programmed miserably short attention spans, it's too much work to, say, figure out how to make a weapon.
Uh... those would have to be -really- short attention spans if they couldn't figure out "bat, hammer, gun, knife, or stick = hurt someone." No need to carve a trebuchet to do a drive-by.
I mean, I wish it were the case. Because that would be awesome. But you really have no need to "make a weapon" to do violence.
I agree. 13.5 billion is a lot of money. But maintaining that kind of wealth requires Zuckerberg to remain in the spotlight for 40+ hours a week.
Why would that be? I'm honestly asking, I have no frame of reference for wealth beyond about 5 digits. Seems like if he were to retire to an apartment overlooking central park and take up a habit of smashing faberge eggs, he'd still likely die with more than a billion dollars.
I can't believe anyone would bitch and moan about this. This is an awesome idea.
1. You'll notice I wasn't bitching or moaning about it so much as making a cynical prediction, while still endorsing the plan.
2. If you can't believe someone would bitch and moan about something... welcome to the internet!
He also mentions that he had reservations about parodying a gay rights anthem already (which is why he's donating the proceeds to charity). That plus wanting to avoid drama might have pushed him away from doing it anyway.
Also sounds like it was only an issue for a few hours, it may have been resolved before he came to a final decision to release it without permission.
because the last thing that I want to do is to actively change my convenience-gadget to match someone's fancy website...
If I even see the browser itself most of the time, that's a big bucket of fail. The last thing I want to have to do is try to figure out the best way to see it.
Now I'm confused which is REALLY the last thing you want to do? Change your machine or identify the best theme for your browser?
I love these kind of value judgements:
"small business" good "big business" bad
"tenants" good "landlords" bad
"voters" good "politicians" bad
"workers" good "managers" bad
In each of those cases, I know which category of people have screwed me over more. And it's not the ones marked "good." If nothing else, the big businesses tend to lobby for laws that are not in my interest more often than the small businesses. So yeah, the value statements seem pretty accurate to me.
The bill obviously has good intentions but it'll be hard to maintain the info.
Boohoo?
Seems like "hardships" on companies usually just means hardships (no quotes) on the consumers' wallets.
"Due to intrusive federal regulations, we have been forced to do excessive monitoring of our network and publish the results. This has resulted in a $5 increase per month on your cell phone bill.
And, uh, those other miscellaneous charges were also due to big government... yeah..."
I say do it anyway, misleading marketing is misleading marketing and should be stamped out, but I'm calling it now that we'll be paying for it.
The article does mention that the police were considering that. It sounded like there was only one comment about the swat team being in the bushes. I guess it depends on whether the prosecutor thinks it's important to send a message.
It's worth noting that the article makes it sound like the guy shot himself in the chest to try to commit suicide. The police say they didn't fire their gun, but also said that he could face charges for "firing his handgun at police." I suppose he may have been shooting at the police, and they may not have fired back because of the "hostage" (girlfriend sounds like it would be more accurate). Is it possible though the police are saying by trying to commit suicide (pointing the gun at himself and firing) that's "firing his handgun at police"?
Really, the FBI isn't afraid that capturing one alleged member of LulzSec won't cause the other members to bolt and hide the evidence, but disclosing the names will?
I think it's more likely that people at the FBI are afraid they'll lose their jobs if people start thinking they're nowhere with this. Congressman: "How is it that the FBI hasn't caught these 'loosesex' people yet? What are you people doing? I think we need to investigate the FBI's ability to-"
FBI brass: "Well Congressman, you must have missed the rumors that we're about to capture them."
Congressman: "Oh. Well then, back to doing nothing."
Slashdot Mirror
It's anti-illegal-immigrant. There's a difference.
Except that we've made the legal process nearly impossible for most. Fees that are out of the reach of many immigrants, takes an excessively long time, is not a 100% acceptance rate, and the explicit goal is to limit the number of immigrants. If you prefer, we could use the term "anti-poor-immigrant" or "virtually-anti-immigrant" but I call BS on saying we're merely "anti-illegal-immigrant."
Sorry, proofreading: "allowing one company to control all genetically modified soybeans is a bad thing of it's own right" is what I meant.
European Patent No. 301,749, granted in March 1994, is an exceptionally broad “species patent” which grants gene giant Monsanto exclusive monopoly over all forms of genetically engineered soybean varieties and seeds - irrespective of the genes used or the transformation technique employed
Source.
Virtual monopolies over GMOs are an idiotic, and natural marijuana strains may not be able to compete in the long term with genetically engineered strains, but marijuana strains which are currently in use are presumably not patented, nor are they genetically engineered, and thus no one will be able to assert control over them. The fears of legalization allowing Monsanto to come in and steal rights to your pot is paranoia.
Their motto seems to be "gaping holes exposed." I was not brave enough to click on the link from google...
Monsanto can and does. Sure, they patent their own strains, but they also go and buy strains from 'small potatoes' and then invoke strict policies on usage. Check out Food, Inc.
Citation needed (like the quote from the movie you're thinking of). From this article it seems that it's only affecting patented strains of corn. No hint that monsanto is stealing strains others cultivated, nothing to suggest that a company could claim pot strains that they didn't develop.
Yes, you certainly can buy artisan bread at the store, but tell me something - have you ever had a "real" loaf of bread? I'm not talking about something that your local mega-supermarket's bakery slapped an "artisan" label on. Hell, how about even baking your own bread? There's a huge difference.
No, but that's beside the point (and I'm going to direct you to a relevant XKCD strip.) You can buy it still, you'll still be able to buy fine, high priced pot too.
The reason that Obama reneged on his promises w/r/t the drug war, is that the drug war is an enormous pork-barrel scheme.
Or that there is no real political will to legalize it, and substantial opposition to it. Passing healthcare reform may end up costing him the election, it seems to have cost the house. I would have been annoyed at Obama for wasting political capitol on it. If marijuana users want it to be legal, they need to fight for it, pester their law makers. Expecting someone else to do it for them, or just waiting until absolutely no one who votes is actually opposed to marijuana is going to take an extremely long time, and is just plain lazy.
Besides that, the drug war amounts to universal criminalization: cops can get away with breaking into anyone's home and killing them if they pretend to have done so on the basis of an anonymous tip that there were drugs in the house in question.
They'd still be able to do that with any of the other drugs that are never going to be legalized. Law enforcement is also not 100% in favor of continued pot prohibition.
I don't think there's a conspiracy here, I think it's just pot smokers aren't doing anything to win their rights back.
all it does is move the profiteering from criminal enterprises to "legit" ones... same people... different name.
With medical marijuana, you have an avenue to smoke it if you really need it without having to break the law. That's a clear benefit.
They don't want corporations coming, getting access to all of the strains, patenting them (a la Monsanto), forcing out everyone from using seeds without paying royalties, and then ultimately turning the wonderful loaf of artisan bread that you got at the local bakery into a package of Wonder-crap.
Exactly like I said: they don't want to have to compete. You can still buy artisan bread at the store, that should have been a clue. They would still be able to sell their wares exactly as before.
The monsanto comparison is complete and utter crap. Monsanto patented strains of corn they made themselves, at considerable cost, I might add. Though they have some powerful lobbyists, they could -not- just come along and steal the strains of marijuana out there. The growers would still be able to sell their strains, just as you can still grow corn not owned by Monsanto. The reason few farmers do is because roundup-ready corn requires far less pesticides, lowering the cost of production. As the consumer, you get cheaper bread.
The fact that marijuana is 100% safe isn't enough to sway the screaming, mindless Christians
Oh, yeah, I forgot: Christian-Bashing is the last acceptable and politically-correct form of prejudice and ignorant hatred.
I don't think GP was bashing Christians. He was bashing the mindless, screaming ones opposed to marijuana. Which, by definition, are mindless. The Christians that are not mindless, are not screaming, and are not opposed to marijuana, he's not bashing them.
Surely you don't deny the existence of very stupid Christians. I've met some. I'm of the opinion that they're entitled to vote, believe whatever they want, including religion. They can even believe prohibition works when clearly it doesn't. That's fine. They, however, do not have the right to do so without being judged as mindless.
Does that really require a DMCA violation to enforce?
Here in California, we just voted on a referendum to legalize pot.
It failed. I didn't bother to look at the breakdown of the votes, but I do know that some in the stoner community were dead set against it. Why? Because laws against pot weren't enforced where they were, so they weren't seeing any direct benefit, while legalizing it would make it taxable and open up competition. Nevermind that people elsewhere in the state were being arrested for it, nevermind that kids were losing their ability to get financial aid, nevermind that they have a responsibility to pay taxes. Those dumb fucks voted against it.
I can only conclude that pot smokers are too dumb to get pot legalized. Meanwhile, the voters were too stupid to realize that California's biggest crop being taxed AND law enforcement not having to regulate a victimless crime could probably go a decent way toward sorting out the budget woes. Several law enforcement groups came out in favor of it for logical reasons. But the voters just said no.
Considering that approximately 66% of electricity in the US is generated by fossil fuels, electric cars are not really much of an alternative. Just because you don't burn fossil fuels directly in the car doesn't mean they are not dependent on fossil fuels.
Except it -can- be run on renewables. You could install a solar panel on your garage to charge it up in theory. If your local power plant is renewable, your car can run on non-fossil fuel energy.
A gasoline engine, on the other hand, absolutely cannot.
Also, not all fossil fuels are created equal. I vaguely remember hearing that natural gas is cleaner than gasoline, though I could be mistaken. At the very least, it reduces demand on foreign oil. We have coal and natural gas. Save Canadian and Mexican oil for things that must be run on oil, and stop importing from Saudi Arabia, that would be a good thing.
And with their pre-programmed miserably short attention spans, it's too much work to, say, figure out how to make a weapon.
Uh... those would have to be -really- short attention spans if they couldn't figure out "bat, hammer, gun, knife, or stick = hurt someone." No need to carve a trebuchet to do a drive-by.
I mean, I wish it were the case. Because that would be awesome. But you really have no need to "make a weapon" to do violence.
I agree. 13.5 billion is a lot of money. But maintaining that kind of wealth requires Zuckerberg to remain in the spotlight for 40+ hours a week.
Why would that be? I'm honestly asking, I have no frame of reference for wealth beyond about 5 digits. Seems like if he were to retire to an apartment overlooking central park and take up a habit of smashing faberge eggs, he'd still likely die with more than a billion dollars.
Where do you buy the tinfoil for your hats? I think I know which company to invest my money in.
Which company is that? Because I was talking about starting a tinfoil hat business one day, I need to know who to sue to get that $65 mil settlement.
Pretty sure this is more "Who cares" than "I'm envious."
This one is within their settlement price and looks a hell of a lot nicer than having to deal with lawyers and talk about Zuckerman.
I can't believe anyone would bitch and moan about this. This is an awesome idea.
1. You'll notice I wasn't bitching or moaning about it so much as making a cynical prediction, while still endorsing the plan.
2. If you can't believe someone would bitch and moan about something... welcome to the internet!
He also mentions that he had reservations about parodying a gay rights anthem already (which is why he's donating the proceeds to charity). That plus wanting to avoid drama might have pushed him away from doing it anyway.
Also sounds like it was only an issue for a few hours, it may have been resolved before he came to a final decision to release it without permission.
There should be a law against submitting these to slashdot.
Here here! If you HAVE to, at least submit the print version people!
because the last thing that I want to do is to actively change my convenience-gadget to match someone's fancy website...
If I even see the browser itself most of the time, that's a big bucket of fail. The last thing I want to have to do is try to figure out the best way to see it.
Now I'm confused which is REALLY the last thing you want to do? Change your machine or identify the best theme for your browser?
I love these kind of value judgements:
"small business" good "big business" bad
"tenants" good "landlords" bad
"voters" good "politicians" bad
"workers" good "managers" bad
In each of those cases, I know which category of people have screwed me over more. And it's not the ones marked "good." If nothing else, the big businesses tend to lobby for laws that are not in my interest more often than the small businesses. So yeah, the value statements seem pretty accurate to me.
The bill obviously has good intentions but it'll be hard to maintain the info.
Boohoo?
Seems like "hardships" on companies usually just means hardships (no quotes) on the consumers' wallets.
"Due to intrusive federal regulations, we have been forced to do excessive monitoring of our network and publish the results. This has resulted in a $5 increase per month on your cell phone bill.
And, uh, those other miscellaneous charges were also due to big government... yeah..."
I say do it anyway, misleading marketing is misleading marketing and should be stamped out, but I'm calling it now that we'll be paying for it.
The article does mention that the police were considering that. It sounded like there was only one comment about the swat team being in the bushes. I guess it depends on whether the prosecutor thinks it's important to send a message.
It's worth noting that the article makes it sound like the guy shot himself in the chest to try to commit suicide. The police say they didn't fire their gun, but also said that he could face charges for "firing his handgun at police." I suppose he may have been shooting at the police, and they may not have fired back because of the "hostage" (girlfriend sounds like it would be more accurate). Is it possible though the police are saying by trying to commit suicide (pointing the gun at himself and firing) that's "firing his handgun at police"?
Really, the FBI isn't afraid that capturing one alleged member of LulzSec won't cause the other members to bolt and hide the evidence, but disclosing the names will?
I think it's more likely that people at the FBI are afraid they'll lose their jobs if people start thinking they're nowhere with this.
Congressman: "How is it that the FBI hasn't caught these 'loosesex' people yet? What are you people doing? I think we need to investigate the FBI's ability to-"
FBI brass: "Well Congressman, you must have missed the rumors that we're about to capture them."
Congressman: "Oh. Well then, back to doing nothing."